People v. De Asis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Rico de Asis y Balquin, was charged in three separate Informations for illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165), illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165), and possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on June 1, 2011, where the accused allegedly sold one sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) for P500.00 to a poseur-buyer from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and was subsequently found in possession of four additional sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City found the appellant guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for the sale, and twelve years and one day to thirteen years imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00 for the possession. The RTC acquitted the appellant of possession of drug paraphernalia due to insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, adjusting the indeterminate penalty for illegal possession to twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, challenging his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Whether there was full compliance with the chain of custody requirement in the seizure of the illegal drugs.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and held that there was full compliance with the chain of custody requirements.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: The Court held that the elements of illegal sale were fully established: (a) the identity of the seller (appellant) and the buyer (Agent Gacus); (b) the consideration of the sale (P500.00 marked money); and (c) the delivery of the thing sold (shabu) and its payment to the seller. Both Agents Gacus and Taghoy positively identified the appellant as the seller of 0.05 gram of shabu. The marked money used in the transaction was recovered from the appellant's pocket immediately after the sale. The Court gave full weight and consideration to the categorical and straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, finding no malice in their statements. On the issue of illegal possession of dangerous drugs: The Court affirmed the conviction for illegal possession, stating that as an incident of the buy-bust operation, four sachets of shabu were found in the appellant's pocket. The prosecution proved that such possession was not authorized by law and that the appellant freely and consciously possessed them in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The elements of illegal possession were met, including the fact that the appellant had possession, custody, and control of the dangerous drugs, and that he knew he was in possession of a dangerous drug. On the issue of chain of custody: The Court found full compliance with the chain of custody requirement. The immediate marking of the seized items with the initials of the arresting officer and the date of the operation was done at the place of the buy-bust. An inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of a barangay kagawad and a media representative. Photographs of the items and the inventory process were taken. The seized items were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, and the forensic chemist confirmed that the specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The arresting officers identified and attested in court that the seized items were the same ones presented, thus preserving their integrity and evidentiary value.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, with full compliance with the chain of custody requirements under R.A. No. 9165.